21 November 2006 3:27 PM

A small complaint about language

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

There's a large industry now of people complaining (quite rightly) about the way the English language is being massacred by modern usage. They are on to something important, since language has a great effect on thought and behaviour. I'm sure that millions of lives are bleaker these days because nobody is taught poetry by heart any more, and so they simply don't know that things can be expressed in a richer, deeper way than plain prose. But there are many smaller ways in which English is being altered.

There are several things of this kind that annoy me - the use of 'can I get' rather than 'please may I have' (especially for buying coffee or fast food) is so strange, and such a frightening example of the hypnotic power of TV to influence people without them even noticing they've been influenced, that it gives me the shivers every time I hear it.

Here are two others. One is the use of 'the eighteen hundreds' to describe the 19th century. Where did this come from? Is it because the victims of comprehensive schools are so stricken by years of unteaching that they cannot cope with the fact that a century all but one of whose years begin with the figure '18' is in fact the nineteenth? Is it an American import? I don't know. But it matters in the same way that the use of the word 'disinterested ' to mean 'uninterested' (which it doesn't) matters. Because, as a result, we lose a word which once meant one clear thing, and now have two different words which are widely taken to mean the same thing. So we are left with a language vaguer and less useful than it was before.

The expression "the eighteen hundreds" has always meant, until now, the years between 1800 (the last year of the 18th century) and 1809. But if it is now also used to refer to the entire century, then that meaning will gradually be lost.

Not so important, but even more baffling, is the way in which prices are given in TV and radio advertisements. Instead of saying "Three hundred and ninety nine", the urgent voice will shout "three nine nine". I suppose it saves a little time, but not much, and it is very ugly. I've noticed that shop assistants, who aren't pressed for time by TV schedules, also do this. Is this the result of too many numeracy hours? Can anyone explain?

All comments are moderated by the community team. Please contact community@dailymailonline.co.uk with any queries about moderation.

You know, it seems to me, like, from where I sit, as it were, in a manner of speaking, no offense and with the greatest of respect, I mean, don't get me wrong, it's just, well, it has been known to be the case that, all things being equal , in an ideal world, at this moment in time, as I see it, in my honest opinion, all things considered, at the end of the day, with the best will in the world,
don't get me wrong, who am I to judge, I hate to say this but, look here, speaking off the record, from one friend to another,
when all is said and done, and another thing...

Reference to John Cammish 27/11/2006, I have always understood a "shedload" to be large amount, ie, an amount to fill a large shed.
Thank you every one else, I actually learnt(learned?) a few things reading the posts. I know my English Grammar is bad, but to whom should I turn for help?

re. in response to the poster who commented on the use in the English language of the terms of 'Racism' and 'Racialism'. The OED gives an incomplete definition of the term Racialism. Racialism is defined by Webster's Dictionary, the Cambridge dictionary, and Bartleby's dictionary as: 1a. an emphasis on on race or racial considerations in determining policy or interpreting events; 1b. policy or practice based upon racial considerations. You can see examples of the use of the term 'Racialism' by figures such as Nelson Mandela, WEB Dubois, and Martin Luther King. The term is also used by openly racialist groups such as the Aryan movements in the United States as a means to define their ideological aims and goals.

Racialism is also defined by the above dictionaries as a uniquely English variant of the term 'racism'. In the 1960s and 1970s figures such as Enoch Powell and John Tyndall were always called 'Racialists'. I believe Mr. Hitchens stated in his book 'A History of Crime' that the term 'Racialist' is preferable because 'Racist' is oftern used by those who support Political Correctness to smear those who aren't bigots but nevertheless disagree with aspects of multiculturalism. It's for that reason that I myself will only use the term 'Racialism' now, even though I was born long after it went out of use.

Y'know: No excuse for this one, seems that David Beckham has made this phrase popular

Obviously: I think this is just said by speakers, to avoid giving the impression they are patronising the audience by stating the obvious-- although it can have the opposite effect!

To be honest: I don't see much of a problem with this phrase. It is used by the speaker to confirm or emphasise to the listener, that what is being said is the speaker's honest opinion; rather than a diplomatic or reticent view.

As long as "to be honest" does not a precede a clearly mendacious, diplomatic, misleading or euphemistic expression of opinion, then I have no problem with the phrase. It acts as a reassurance to the listener, when the phrase is used correctly.

Regarding cliches... I get tired of reading phrases such as "sick as a parrot" or "avoid it like the plague".

Idioms and metaphors brighten up the language, however some phrases can be worn out by over-use. The problem with not using them, is that another phrase will be adopted that will in turn become cliched-- so the over-use of certain metaphors is a perpetual problem. It will come to the point where we will run out of metaphors!

The best we can do is use metaphors sparingly and try to think of different ways of expressing things where possible-- so that we avoid hackneyed idiom.

The first and only time I visited New York City and asked for a drink in bar, saying, "Can I have a Budweiser please", I was confronted with puzzlement and quickly capitulated into, "Gimme a Bud". It worked, I got my beer and walked in puzzlement to a table.

Here are examples of speech that have no particular meaning and have unfortunately crept into the English language:-
1) At the end of the day (at the beginning or end of a sentence - could somebody please explain this?)
2) Y'know (at the beginning of a sentence or a pause)
3) Obviously (at the beginning of a sentence even when what is being said is not obvious)
4) To be honest (at the beginning or end of sentence)

As a bit of a language pedant myself, I have to say I think Peter's examples are all pretty small beer. I was educated not in a comprehensive but in a grammar school, and in all my thirty-odd years I have always used "the 1800s" to refer to the entire century, not just to the first ten years. Sorry Peter, but if this is a battle, it's one that was lost a long time ago.

The "three nine nine" business is indeed extremely ugly. It's pretty clear to me that it comes mostly from a desire to make the prices not seem as high as they are. "Let's not even say the word 'hundred' and people will think it's even cheaper!"

How about 'shedload', which I think means a load which has been shed, rather than a load which would fill a shed?

Bill Bryson (an America whose love and interest in English was stirred when he worked as a sub editor with Murdoch's Sunday Times) now reluctantly acknowledges the use of decimate to mean reduce to a tenth

For those Archers Anoraks there is a 'pedants' thread on the BBC Message boards

I do so hate the 'Americanisation' of the date. Why do we now mostly have the month first whenever a date is printed or even quoted(for example, November 26)? Apart from anything else, it is just not logical.

Guy Ritchie's accent is more fake Estuary English than a proper London accent.

EE is responsible for large chunk of the butchering of our language. Copious amounts of "innits" and consonants not being pronounced within words. "Shaapwiya". It has spread from London, Essex and Kent.

EE is now heard frequently on programmes like Coronation Street; the accents of northern England are a wonderful gift from our Viking ancestors-- why ruin them with this slack-jawed drawl?

I frequently hear "we was" and "you was" too, another part of EE that's spreading fast. Most people my age (early twenties)can't use the subjunctive either. "If I was rich", instead of: "If I were rich". Or: "They suggested he resigns"... instead of: "They suggested he resign".

The worst feature of EE is the double negative, for example "I ain't done nothing". In English this is illogical, because two negative make a positive (as in maths). Sadly your average EE speaker is too dense to realise he/she is saying the exact opposite of what they intend!

EE also features what Stephen Fry calls AQI-- Australia Question Intonation. As a previous correspondent remarked, it's raising your voice at the end of sentences to make it sound like a question all the time? Don't do it? It's annoying? How do I know when you *are* asking a question?

The usage of "result" to mean just a favourable outcome is strange too. Footballer commentators say that a winning team "got a result"; or on The Bill the officers say "that was a result", when a case has been closed successfully.

It's a result whatever happens-- surely?! The definition of a result is a final outcome, good *or bad*! Again, it's another case of a perfectly useful word having its meaning needlessly distorted.

It's (it is)/its (possessive pronoun) are now being blurred, again this can lead to ambiguity.

I agree with the point on "enormity". It actually means the wickedness or evil of something, nothing to do with enormous.

These are the sort of changes we ought to be concerning ourselves with; where meanings and pronunciations of words (and grammar) are changed needlessly and 'dangerously'.

As I stated before, English is now the global language. In these days of mass communication it is important that English should be as consistent as possible to avoid misunderstanding in our communications.

The above might sound petty, but if a diplomat said "enormity" to erroneously mean "the enormous scale of something", but the diplomat's audience took it to mean "wickedness or evil of something", there might be a few diplomatic headaches!

Language does change over time, you only have to look at Shakespeare's works to see that. More recently, the word "whom" has virtually dissapeared over the past 60 years. Some may mourn its passing, but does "whom" really serve a useful purpose?

I now notice that "I" is now often written as just "i" in letters and on the Internet. Of course it's wrong, but I can see by the end of this century it will become the norm. When you think about it, is there any good reason why the first-person subject pronoun is always written in upper-case?

The two examples above of natural change that has been occurring since the birth of the English language, but they are harmless-- little point in fighting them.

My main objection is to needlessly change pronunciation, spelling and most importantly meaning of words; which will only serve to confuse people and cause misunderstandings.

We should try to avoid cliches, stale metaphors and stale similies. 'Cuts like a knife', 'stamp out racism', 'faster than a speading bullet', 'flying as high as an eagle', 'pet hate', 'talking heads', and 'cry out against injustice' all make the article or essay in which they appear a little duller.

Perhaps the fact that any language, except the dead ones of course, change with usage is what is happening here. What I can't get in my head, is that on one hand spelling, thanks to spell checkers, will not change as quickly as it used too, while on the other, texting, a word incedently that I can't stand,could change the language faster than anything that has gone before. Regards Jeff P

"Making hay while the sun shines!" drives me bonkers. It's "making hey" - from a completely different root. Another ignorant/careless usage that is awfully irritating is "while away time". It makes no sense at all. The correct, and loveliest, usage is "wile away time" - wile being to charm, to work magic, to beguile. Charm and beguile coming from the same root as wile. We are impoverished when ill-educated people think wile is the same as while.

No wonder so few Brits can speak a second language, when they are unable to grasp the - very easy - grammar and usage of their native language.

When I read the other contributions (above) I quite literally died. Gobsmacked, I was. I should of not been, but fear that individuals are changing our language off their own backs, and sometimes in one fair swoop.

My idiot CEO at work has told us all that we are now an 'American Company'. We're not, of course, but we sell to the Yanks and I think he's hoping that a US company will buy us one day. Because of this Great Declaration, we have to;
[a] 'Cut checks' to US suppliers;
[b] State our 'zip code' in all correspondence;
[c] Ensure that all 'programs' run smoothly;
[d] Standardize, incentivize and "-ize" everything else;
[e] Pick all the low-hanging fruit;
[f] Get all our ducks in a row (I have taken to calling it 'waterfowl alignment')

Grant commented above that a shorter expression trumps a longer one, so why do I see and hear the expression "ON A DAILY BASIS" on a daily basis?
In what kind of situation would "DAILY" or "EVERY DAY" not be adequate?
I've also noticed that the word "DEVASTATED" is being used where "UPSET", "SADDENED" or "DISSAPOINTED" would be more appropriate.

Probably the worst culprit for the mangling of language is the text message, with online messaging, such as MSN, a close second. However, an area that must shoulder a lot of the responsibility is the computer industry itself.

A lot of the misuse or redefinition of English words in computing hasn't yet leaked out to the outside world, but it can't be long in coming. A couple of my pet peeves (I am a university lecturer in computing so I see these far too often) are:

"leveraging". This mutation of a noun into a verb is meant to mean the use of existing technology or skills to produce new products, as in "I leveraged the company's payroll software to develop a new database." I'm not sure what's wrong with saying "I used..." instead.

"persisting". Here we have an intransitive verb mutating into a transitive one (and, yes, you are correct in assuming that hardly anyone knows what those terms mean). To "persist" data means to save it in some permanent form, such as on a hard disk. Again, what's wrong with just "saving" data?

Is it right to be annoyed by things like this? Language does mutate over the years and centuries. No one speaks like Shakespeare any more, after all. I think it depends on the reasons for the changes. Changes due to ignorance, such as the misuse of "your" for "you're", or using "it's" for "its" (or vice versa), result from ignorance or laziness and are to be deplored, because they convey the wrong information. Similarly, the hideous abbreviations (aside: why is abbreviation such a long word?) used in text messages and MSN conversations are again due to laziness. The word-prediction software built into virtually all mobiles makes using correct spelling and punctuation very easy (provided you *know* the correct usage to begin with!) so there is little excuse for not using it.

The use of ugly terms such as "leveraging" and "persisting data" are, it seems to me, attempts by so-called professionals to make themselves sound like they know something you don't. These terms serve no useful purpose, since there are already adequate words in English for conveying their meanings.

The proper evolution of language comes from the creation of words to express concepts previously unknown (such as many terms invented to label new scientific concepts), or phrases invented to describe new world views or cultural changes. The problem is that ignorance and laziness are two forces of human nature that are far too powerful to overcome with an appeal to reason.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.